The Ratification Debate

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government would be divided into three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists wanted the original government that was placed under the Articles of Confederation. The people that debated over these different forms of government wrote about it in what is known as, “The Federalist Papers.” There were many authors that wrote about this debate, but the main ones were: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. One of the main points of argument was that they wanted to eliminate the power of factions. (Fed 10) Factions are people with the same interests that want the government to run their way. One of the ways that they could do this was to have a large republic. By having this type of large government, it would allow the people to have different opinions. This would be a good thing because you couldn’t have groups of people always having control over the government, it would change throughout time. Another main point of the papers was to either split up the government or to keep it all in one area. This was a problem because the people that were farther away wouldn’t have that big of a say in what their government is doing. (Fed 10) The small republics were scared that they were going...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿Parliamentary form of government is better
Good morning sir chairperson and members of jury. Friends, I want to ask if a man designated to wind a clock at 12 noon everyday does not do his job, is the clock to be changed or the man to be fired? What will change by switching to a presidential system? Corruption gone------ bureaucracy efficiency incarnate, ----------every MP and MLA a beacon of integrity, ---- no more caste, crime, violence? ----------Nothing will change, -----the same rats will make new holes in a new almirah, ------yes, sir, the same rats will make new holes. This is not about changing the rules of the game, but playing the game better. We need better people in politics, we need better politics.
The presidential system is quite flawed and is not suitable for a country like India --- which is the second most populous country----------and whose diversity ---------in terms of language, culture and religion ---------is immense. It has many demerits like: ------it encourages a 2-party system which may not represent the interests of all Indians. --------Voters would vote for a party based on the personality of the presidential candidate and not--------- on the ideology, -------President may be from one party, but the government may be from another party with a completely different ideology, which can lead to policy paralysis--------- if there is a clash of views.
I want to ask my friends are they not aware that in India, Dalits have been in...

...Ratification of the Constitution
In 1787 the Constitution was written and submitted to the states for ratification, this leading to months of fierce debate. Some states welcomed the new Constitution but others were fearful of it. They were afraid that this would be just like being under the control of Great Britain, which they just broke free from. But the rest of the states saw this as a good thing and very necessary for America to strive.
In Document 1, we find a newspaper editor from the Massachusetts Sentinel supporting the ratification of the Constitution. He says that America is a mess now and by ratifying the Constitution; all that is wrong will be fixed. It will strengthen trade and protect American name and character. In Document 3, we see an excerpt from a letter John ay wrote to George Washington. He said that in the Articles of Confederation there were errors that need to be addressed and corrected. The colonies were disunited and in need of a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson also believed that the Constitution should be ratified, and in order to protect the rights of the people a Bill of Rights must be made. He says this in a letter to James Madison in Document 6. Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist like John Jay and Madison, also agrees that ratification of the constitution should be agreed on. He says in document 7 that as long as the federal government fulfills the two...

...a marketing platform for business developers with its vast consumer reach.
On the other hand, what we are affirming today is that despite it upsides, it can bring about MORE harm than good. It is an increasingly untenable fact, especially with the ease of access to the internet to virtually anyone, that these social media can have more negative effects than good.
This is Veronica, she will be speaking about the negative effects that it will bring to our health and financial fraud.
Secondly, Hema will elaborate further the effects on business risk and personal risk.
Thirdly, Nazrul will touch on the topic of productivity and cyber-criminal activities.
Last but not least, Joshua will briefly wrap up about this debate.
This is a 5-round debate, and we look forward to challenging our opponent in this controversial topic.
Social networking sites are websites that facilitate communication between 2 or more individuals. When we are communicating with 2 or more individuals, many fail to realise that we are essentially putting out information on ourselves out there on the World Wide Web. There are obviously a lot of privacy issues at hand when this happens. I'm certain that the opposition will argue that we have control of what we share over the internet, and we can prevent these issues from happening. Even if we are very careful on what information we share, we still cannot prevent all forms of privacy violation from happening. An...

...This house believes that developing countries should ban members of political dynasties from standing for elected office ratty ryn to ty nrhgThis house believes the UK government should pay house husbands and housewives a salary
1st prop
On side prop we say that for too long the legitimate choice to prioritise your family over your work life, the legitimate choice to spend more time with your children and make sure they archive the best in life is only available in socioeconomic middle and upper classes. And that is something that we stand to change on our side. But furthermore it for too long has been the case tat males will not stay at home and look after the children instead of women. We get a very harmful situation as it is seen as desirable for the women to stay at home and for the an to go out and work. On side prop today we stand to change both of those things, resulting in a better outcome for children, for women and for men. So with that in mind I am going to bring you 3 points in this speech:
1) why people who make these choices deserve a sallery
2) why it's better for children in 3 key ways
3) why it's better for family dynamics
Micah is going to go on and tell you about gender equality and why it is better inside and outside the home and why they greatly improve under this model.
But firstly, what is the model that we propose?
Any couple who has children, one of them I'll be allowed to stay at home and not work. Claim a state salary of 20,000...

...debate
ADVANTAGES OF CITY LIFE
Sometime you may be think, the city life is better than village life. However there are so many advantages in city life. Actually the city life is more comfortable. As well as there are more opportunities for people to progress in their lives. There are a lot of facilities for people in the city and they have more opportunities for making money.
Children living in the city can get a good education, because there are better schools in the town than in the village. When a person falls ill there are good government and private hospitals in the city to get treatment. There are large shop complexions, banks, offices, theaters, hostels, clubs, hospitals etc. in and around the city. People in the city have better transport facilities than the village.
There is electricity, highway, communication, telecommunication, plumb facilities in the city. So people can lead a comfortable and enjoyable life in the city. Although living in the city has many advantages.
1. People easily adapt themselves to city life; noise, traffic, etc. are hardly noticed.
2. There are many reasons why city life is preferable: there are more places for entertainment.
3. It is good to be near one's friends and never cut off by weather conditions.
4. Life is never dull; there is always something to do.
5. There are better schools and services in big cities.
6. There are more chances for employment. There is a greater range...

...Introduction
DEBATING: A BASIC INTRODUCTION
BEGINNER
Let’s start at the beginning. Every debate needs a topic. This is a contentious assertion that forms the basis for the debate. For example, the topic might be “THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE SMART THAN TO BE KIND” or “THAT THE UNITED NATIONS HAS FAILED”. This book relates to a specific but common style of debate. It is the style used in most schools throughout Australia and in many other countries, at the Australian National Schools Debating Championships and at the World Schools Debating Championships. In this style, there are two teams in every debate. One team is required to argue that the topic is true. This team is called the ‘affirmative’, or sometimes the ‘proposition’. The other team is required to argue that the topic is not true. This team is called the ‘negative’, or sometimes the ‘opposition’. Each team uses two basic types of argument to support for its side of the topic. First, there are substantive arguments. These are prepared arguments in favour of a team’s side of the topic. Second, there is rebuttal. Rebuttal is your attack on your opposition’s arguments. The difference between substantive arguments and rebuttal is the distinction between showing why your team is right and showing why your opposition is wrong. It is impossible to say whether substantive arguments or rebuttal are more important – each is just as important as the other, and each is...

...Website: www.cbseacademic.in
Tel: 23212603
Tele Fax: 23234324
E-mail: director@cbseacademic.in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(An autonomous Organisation under the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India)
‘Shiksha Sadan’, 17-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi – 110 002
CBSE/ACAD/Dir(Arti)/2013
Circular No: Acad-73/2013
Dated : November 06, 2013
All the Heads of Institutions
affiliated to CBSE,
Subject: Modified syllabus-2014 , Design of assessment and sample questions in the subjects Hindi
(A), Hindi (B), English(Communicative), English(Language and Literature),
Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences and Sanskrit to be used for Summative
Assessment- II, March- 2014 Class X.
Dear Principal,
Further to circular number Acad-46/2012 regarding introduction of ‘Value’ based questions in the design
of question papers in all major subjects in classes IX-X in SA-II w.e.f. academic session 2012-13, the
following information needs to be shared with all teachers, students and parents
1. ‘Value’ based questions have been added to the extent of only 3 to 5 marks in major
subjects given above.
2. Modified syllabus enclosed must be referred to and not Curriculum Document 2014 for the
above mentioned subjects.
Please find enclosed with this circular the modified syllabus (only with minor modifications), design of
QP and exemplar items in the subjects as given below:
S No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Subject
English (Communicative)...

...women of marginalized groups and transgender persons may be forcibly sterilized.
Provider rights include: the right to quality standards of working conditions, the right to associate freely, and the right to refuse to perform a procedure based on their morals. Healthcare providers often experience violations of their rights. For instance, particularly in countries with weak rule of law, healthcare providers are often forced to perform procedures which negate their morals, deny marginalized groups the best possible standards of care, breach patient confidentiality, and conceal crimes against humanity and torture. Furthermore, providers who do not oblige these pressures are often persecuted. Currently, especially in the United States, much debate surrounds the issue of “provider consciousness”, which retains the right of providers to abstain from performing procedures that do not align with their moral code, such as abortions.
Legal reform as a mechanism to combat and prevent violations of patient and provider rights presents a promising approach. However, in transitional countries (newly formed countries undergoing reform), and other settings with weak rule of law, may be limited. Resources and tools for lawyers, providers, and patients interested in improving human rights in patient care have been formulated.
The right to health is the economic, social and cultural right to a universal minimum standard of health to which all individuals are entitled....